Anfauglir, I suppose you would have to give it a try to find out. As you can see from the posts after yours however, other people here aren't really interested in my proposal, but rather just to mock me, which is why I only offered it to you.

This isn't my area of expertise either, I'm more about YEC and such (in the affirmative), and prefer debates about that.

However, since there happens to be ONE apparent contradiction about Judas (without sources), offered by the OP no less, I will answer it with what he seems to miss, and then perhaps he will be satisfied. But I'm not going to wait around for more.

Quote

"Maybe he hung himself and the rope broke and he fell on the ground and his belly bursts open"

The bloat stage provides the first clear visual sign that microbial proliferation is underway. In this stage, anaerobic metabolism takes place, leading to the accumulation of gases, such as hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane. The accumulation of gases within the bodily cavity causes the distention of the abdomen and gives a cadaver its overall bloated appearance.

He died by hanging, then his body bloated. Presumably, his head was detached before the rope broke, but either way if he was to fall from a decent height, he probably Acts 1:18 "burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out" because of his decomposing, weakened, corpse.

I was going to disagree with you, but ChristianConspirator went and chimed in with exactly the type of ad poc hoc nonsense nonsense I talked about, in fact the very example I gave, doing strengthening your position that he is not as smart as a child.

Quote

even though the new story has elements in it that are so wild, significant, and/or obvious that they would have been mentioned in the first place.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 06:25:23 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Anfauglir, I suppose you would have to give it a try to find out. As you can see from the posts after yours however, other people here aren't really interested in my proposal, but rather just to mock me, which is why I only offered it to you.

This isn't my area of expertise either, I'm more about YEC and such (in the affirmative), and prefer debates about that.

However, since there happens to be ONE apparent contradiction about Judas (without sources), offered by the OP no less, I will answer it with what he seems to miss, and then perhaps he will be satisfied. But I'm not going to wait around for more.

Quote

"Maybe he hung himself and the rope broke and he fell on the ground and his belly bursts open"

The bloat stage provides the first clear visual sign that microbial proliferation is underway. In this stage, anaerobic metabolism takes place, leading to the accumulation of gases, such as hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane. The accumulation of gases within the bodily cavity causes the distention of the abdomen and gives a cadaver its overall bloated appearance.

He died by hanging, then his body bloated. Presumably, his head was detached before the rope broke, but either way if he was to fall from a decent height, he probably Acts 1:18 "burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out" because of his decomposing, weakened, corpse.

Bodies do not fall that way. I see you were dishonest enough to clip that out of what you quoted of me, and dishonest enough not to include the "fell headlong" part of Acts 1:18.

Quote

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

versus Matthew 27:5-8

Quote

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day

So you ignore the counter evidence of physics( a body dangling by the neck will not fall headlong), and ignore the counter evidence of the scripture you deem without contradiction while constructing an ad post hoc description. Your argument is invalid....and that's not even beginning to address two different accounts of what was done with the silver.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

even though the new story has elements in it that are so wild, significant, and/or obvious that they would have been mentioned in the first place.

You're right. Why doesn't that stupid bible tell us every single detail about every possible event talked about? How moronic of God not to think of that.

I wonder, have you ever lost an argument?

Yes. And when I do, I modify my position.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Yeah, I am still waiting for a real explanation of any of the the contradictions listed. It is aggravating the way people hand wave and excuse crazy, impossible stuff in the bible, supposedly the most important book ever, but then wonder why we don't accept it as true.

The same applies to any religious text, not just the bible. If it has crazy, impossible stuff in it, we find it hard to believe. All the dancing around the point won't change that.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

You're moving the goalpost again. Is that what you mean by modifying your position? The original contradiction has to do with two conflicting passages, and the new one has to do with a claim against one.

Unless you are a Greek scholar, you should probably realise that the version of your bible you're reading may not be translated in precisely the way it was meant to be conveyed, that's the nature of translation. Edit: transcription

"Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while"

You're doing it again: you're pretending you know these things when you actually don't. Here's an idea, go spend a year studying the subject then come back and discuss. Most likely you still won't know what you're talking about but at least you may survive us a bit longer.

As I see it you're about to blame us for your faults, tell us we're all going to hell unless we accept your position, and whinge away like a little boy wanting his mommy to make the bad people to go away.

You're moving the goalpost again. Is that what you mean by modifying your position? The original contradiction has to do with two conflicting passages, and the new one has to do with a claim against one.

Unless you are a Greek scholar, you should probably realise that the version of your bible you're reading may not be translated in precisely the way it was meant to be conveyed, that's the nature of translation. Edit: transcription

"Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while"

Ah the translation gambit, always there for a little wiggle room for the trapped apologist. Funny how your ad post hoc argument seems to belittle me for asking "for every detail" yet the concept the "he hung himself" isn't a little detail. The fact the body would have had to hang there long enough for rot to set in. Both of those "little details" would be part of a newspaper headline, or the first paragraph.

Furthermore, "headlong" in all of those examples are about a rush/quickly. Waiting around for a body to rot, doesn't meet anywhere near the idea of quickly.

Oh and I will never leave you alone. You are exactly the type of idiot I like to intellectually slap around.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 09:26:11 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Unless you are a Greek scholar, you should probably realise that the version of your bible you're reading may not be translated in precisely the way it was meant to be conveyed, that's the nature of translation. Edit: transcription

"Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while"

So what you are saying is that the Bible used by 99% of Christians contains errors of translation and transcription - and you also point to errors of omission as well.

The follow on question is therefore fairly obvious, I would have thought: if the Bible contains errors (and, I would suggest, contains a number of those such errors as indicated by Hatter's previous list), then on what basis can one contend that the rest of the Bible must be the full and definite truth? If the explanation for so many problems is "well, English Bibles aren't reliable", then let us ALSO agree that the "miracle" of the loaves and fishes saw Christ feed 50 people, rather than 5,000, due to an error of transcription? That Christ causing a "lame" man to walk wasn't really someone with NO use of his legs, but someone with just a little bit of a twisted ankle?

Start to claim the Bible is wrong in several details (which appears to be what you are doing), and where does that route lead?

Anfauglir, I suppose you would have to give it a try to find out. As you can see from the posts after yours however, other people here aren't really interested in my proposal, but rather just to mock me, which is why I only offered it to you.

I would suggest that perhaps you may need to take some responsibility for that - anyone who comes here and says "I've done extensive research on apparent contradictions", and then bangs on for days and 2 pages without presenting a single example, is not likely to earn the respect of this community. We've seen it all before, you see, and while you may not be the common christian that we have come to expect, your attitudes thus far certainly fit the pattern.

This isn't my area of expertise either, I'm more about YEC and such (in the affirmative), and prefer debates about that.

Then I would again suggest that making your earliest posts "I have examined contradictions in depth and found them all to be explainable" was not the most accurate way of introducing yourself?

You may not wish to believe it, but we will mock and ask pointed questions of ANYONE whose actions suggest some kind of flim-flam. And that includes "atheists mocking atheists", on positions taken about non-religious attitudes. I recall (I think it was Ad Hom, but I may be mistaken) giving me a good drubbing about childcare.

People are judged on this site by what they actually put forward, not the high-sounding words with which they describe themselves or their beliefs. You may wish to consider the way you have been presenting yourself before complaining about your treatment?

Nah. The jello mushy types who use postmodernism style language and have apparently taken way too much drugs, those I really do shy away from.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Start to claim the Bible is wrong in several details (which appears to be what you are doing), and where does that route lead?

Which leads me back to the original point; even the translation gambit leads to using a different standard of skepticism towards stories from the ancient text (containing stories of talking animals, magic, and otherworldly beings) that you were brought up with as opposed any of the ones, with similar fantastical elements that you weren't brought up with.

All gnostic theists are guilty of special pleading.

None of CCs posts have done anything to undermine that premise.

I liken it to a teacher going over a paper. Lets say a thousand page thesis. They find factual errors, unsupported assertions, plagiarism, spelling errors, math errors, the paper disagreeing with itself. Based on these numerous problems, the teacher states the papers conclusions are invalid.

They mark down the paper based on these flaws.

The student defending the thesis states it is perfect. They cite sections that don't show these flaws.

Both are cherrypicking, but it is the student who keep asserting the perfection of his work.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 08:29:56 AM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

He died by hanging, then his body bloated. Presumably, his head was detached before the rope broke, but either way if he was to fall from a decent height, he probably Acts 1:18 "burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out" because of his decomposing, weakened, corpse.

Do you really, honest to glob, believe that is what the bible is saying? Do you really, honest to glob, believe there is no contradiction whatsoever between the two stories?

Because what you are putting forth strains credulity so far that I can hardly believe even you believe this is the case and are just saying these words so as to not lose an argument. It sounds like you are saying "there might be no contradiction and this could have been the case," without a whole lot of conviction behind it.

You're moving the goalpost again. Is that what you mean by modifying your position?

That's not what I meant. And it is very clearly not what I meant. Furthermore, no goalposts are moved.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:18:41 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Again, we are talking about the one book that is supposed to represent the ideas, desires, instructions or descriptions from the most powerful being in the universe. This being presumably wants everyone to know about it. If so, people should not have to read several obscure ancient languages or be scholars in Middle East history and archeology in order to understand the book.

If it is vital for everyone to know about it, the book should be clear, unambiguous and easy for people to understand. No matter how it is translated, the meanings should not change--it's from a powerful magical god, not just a regular book, right? Whether inspired by or directly created by this being, there should not be errors, contradictions or parts that are so unclear as to lead to entirely opposite interpretations.

The book should not have parables that don't make sense, and passages that change meaning depending on whether they are actual facts or metaphors for something else. The book should not have statements that are easily shown to be scientifically incorrect. And the commands or instructions should be useful for all times and all people, not just for the people who were around when the book was written.

Like, the rules about what to do about slaves, rape victims, lepers, witches, gay people, adulterous spouses and mouthy children have changed quite a bit since the bible days. (And we are very happy about that.) If the bible is eternal, that should not be the case.

Is the creator of the universe a cruel jokester trying to trick people into misunderstanding his commands so we end up in hell? He is certainly not the kind, loving perfect being we have been told about, if his sacred text is the one thing we have to go by. Any being who expects flawed, ordinary human beings to be able to correctly understand such an imperfect contradictory work--or else risk eternal torment-- is either playing a cruel joke, or is itself just made up by people like all other gods and magical beings.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If it is vital for everyone to know about it, the book should be clear, unambiguous and easy for people to understand. No matter how it is translated, the meanings should not change

I agree 100% - and I'd just like to add that we should remember that (according to the Bible) all the needs for translations come from an act of Yahweh himself. If anyone misunderstands the Bible through a translation error, the fault for that lies entirely with him.